113 So. 2d 760 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1959
Appellee Jones Business College brought suit seeking a decree declaring that its real and personal property is exempt from ad valorem taxation under the applicable provisions of our State Constitution and statutes, and enjoining the taxing officials of Duval County from further assessing its property for taxation. From a decree adjudging that plaintiff is entitled to the claimed exemption, the taxing officials have appealed.
The complaint, filed in April, 1957, alleges that plaintiff is a non-profit educational institution and that its real and personal property for which exemption is claimed is used exclusively for educational purposes within the meaning of the constitution and statutes granting an exemption from taxation.
Defendants’ answers join issue on this controlling allegation of the complaint, and allege that plaintiff is a commercial business operated for a profit and not entitled to the tax exemption which it seeks.
Extensive testimony was taken before the chancellor who entered a final decree containing his findings and conclusions. The facts do not appear to be in serious dispute. It appears to be appellants’ contention that the chancellor misconceived the legal effect of the evidence, and applied to the issues an incorrect principle of law.
The findings made by the chancellor, supported by competent and substantial evidence, determine that plaintiff is a non-profit corporation under the laws of this state having operated under its charter as an educational institution since 1948. Plaintiff’s activities have been and are to maintain and operate an educational institution developing learning and skill in the field of business law and accounting, and in stenographic and secretarial capacities. The educational subjects taught by plaintiff substantially parallel like subjects taught in the public schools and higher educational institutions of Duval County and elsewhere in Florida. The curriculum covers training and instruction in mathematics, business law, business English, typewriting, shorthand, spelling, accounting, economics, public speaking and federal taxation, among others. During its existence as a non-profit
Based upon the foregoing facts so found by the chancellor he decreed that the real and personal property for which exemption is claimed was during the year 1957 and has since been used exclusively for educational purposes within the terms and conditions of Article XVI, Sec. 16 of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and therefore was and is wholly exempt from any and all taxes, 'assessment of taxes, levy of taxes, sale or attempted sale of and from taxes of any kind, nature and description for the years 1957 and 1958. It was further decreed that any and all taxes or tax sales of such property at any time from and including January 1, 1957, are declared null and void and of no effect. The decree enjoins the defendant taxing officials from selling or attempting to sell or transfer any of the real or personal property mentioned in the complaint by reason of any tax or tax certificate or certificates now outstanding for the years 1957 and 1958 on any of said property.
The controlling provision of the constitution applicable to the issues raised in this proceeding is Article XVI, Sec. 16, which provides:
“The property of all corporations, except the property of a corporation which shall construct a ship or barge canal across the peninsula of Florida, if the Legislature should so enact, whether heretofore or hereafter incorporated, shall be subject to taxation unless such property be held and used exclusively for religious, scientific, municipal, educational, literary or charitable purposes.”
The statute adopted in effectuation of the foregoing provision of the constitution is F.S. Sec. 192.06, F.S.A.:
“Property exempt from taxation. The following property shall be exempt from taxation: * * * (3) Such property of education, literary, benev*763 olent, fraternal, charitable and scientific institutions within this state as shall he actually occupied and used by them for the purpose for which they have been or may be organized; * * *»
It appears to he appellants’ contention that under the facts disclosed by the record the plaintiff corporation cannot be held to be an educational institution within the meaning of the exemption provisions of the constitution and statute. Such position is grounded upon the theory that in order to be entitled to the claimed exemption, it must be shown that the person seeking such exemption is the type of institution in which a general educational program is offered. As we interpret appellants’ position, a school or college cannot be considered an educational institution entitled to tax exemption unless its curriculum includes courses of study which substantially parallel those offered in primary and elementary public schools and institutions of higher learning owned and operated by the state. If this contention can be sustained as a matter of law, it would follow that the decree appealed from is erroneous and should be reversed. It is clear from the evidence, as well as the chancellor’s findings, that although the courses of study offered by the plaintiff in this case parallel courses •offered in the public school system and institutions of higher learning in Florida, it is obvious that the curriculum is not sufficiently broad to include all or a substantial number of the courses offered in the public school system.
In the Florida-Adirondack School case
At the same term in which the Florida-Adirondack case was decided, our Supreme
The liberal construction placed upon the exemption provisions of our constitution and statute by our own Supreme Court regarding educational institutions is in conformity with the great majority of courts in other jurisdictions dealing with the same subject. Although decisions rendered in cases arising in other states of our nation are based upon constitutional and statutory provisions which vary in minor respects from our own, the difference is not so great as to affect a general trend of thought on this subject.
In the Florida-Adirondack case mentioned above there was cited in support of the rule stated therein the case of Rohr-baugh v. Douglas County decided by the Supreme Court of Nebraska
In the Rohrbaugh case the plaintiff was a commercial college offering courses similar to the plaintiff in the case now under consideration. It claimed exemption from taxation under provisions of a constitution and statute similar to those prevailing in Florida. The courses of study taught in the plaintiff college were even more restrictive than those taught in the school operated by plaintiff in this case. It was there-contended that the plaintiff was not an educational institution within the meaning of the constitution and statutory provisions relating to exemption from taxation, but was a commercial enterprise operated primarily for a profit. The court held that the property of the commercial college was used for educational purposes within the meaning of the exemption provisions afforded by the law of this state and was therefore exempt from taxation.
The Tulsa Business College case likewise involved a suit by a business college to obtain exemption from taxation of its real and personal property devoted exclusively to the purposes of the college as afforded by provisions of the Oklahoma constitution and statutes which are similar in many respects to our own. The courses of study shown to be offered by the business college were almost identical to the courses taught by the plaintiff in this case. The same contention was made as was made in the case now considered, and was grounded upon the theory that a business college is not an educational institution, but is primarily a commercial venture operated for-profit. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma refused to restrict the term “schools or colleges” to institutions offering a general educational program, and therefore held that plaintiff’s property was exempt from, taxation.
Appellant contends that the rule which should be adopted by this court in this case is that announced by the Supreme Court of Michigan in the case of City of
History tells us that both immediately before, as well as during the dark days of the reconstruction period following the War between the States, the students of Florida received their education primarily in private schools.
It is our view that under the facts established in this case the plaintiff is an educational institution whose property sought to be exempt is used exclusively for educational purposes. As such, it is entitled to the tax exemption claimed by it.
We have carefully considered the remaining points on appeal, but find that appellant has failed to clearly demonstrate the occurrence of reversible error. The decree appealed from is accordingly affirmed.
. Lummus v. Florida-Adirondack School, Inc., 123 Fla. 810, 168 So. 232.
.Strobmeyer v. Rembrandt Corporation, 128 Fla. 833, 168 So. 242.
. 76 Neb. 679, 107 N.W. 1000.
. 150 Okl. 197, 1 P.2d 351, 352.
. 1948, 322 Mich. 142, 33 N.W.2d 737.
. 95 A.L.R. 75-76; Wilson’s Modern Business College v. King County, 1940, 4 Wash.2d 636, 104 P.2d 580.
. Lummus v. Florida-Adirondack School, Inc., supra note 1.
. Lummus v. Cushman, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 895, 897.